THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO ALICIA AND VICTOR BANGAYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Alicia

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, Arturo Alicia and Victor Bangayan, for the killing of a fellow prisoner and the stabbing of three others inside the prison hospital. The accused pleaded guilty, the trial court convicted them of murder and multiple frustrated murder and imposed the death penalty, and the case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review. It matters for the bar because it is a compact illustration of how a plea of guilty, quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, treachery, evident premeditation, and the automatic review of death sentences all operate together.

Procedural History

The accused were charged before the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel, both pleaded guilty, and the trial court ordered the mandatory presentation of the prosecution's evidence. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on January 28, 1974, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to death, and likewise finding them guilty of multiple frustrated murder and sentencing each to an indeterminate prison term, with awards of indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review pursuant to Rule 122, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, because the penalty imposed was death.

Facts

In the early morning of May 2, 1972, inside Ward 3 of the New Bilibid Prison Hospital in Muntinlupa, four prisoners serving final sentences were attacked and stabbed by the two accused, who were armed with improvised pointed instruments. Felipe Macerin was about to plug in an electric iron when Arturo Alicia stabbed him. Pedro Madjos was massaging the body of Victorio Sansanan, who was suffering from asthma, when both were stabbed by Alicia. Sulficio Sulina was asleep on a mat on the cement floor when Victor Bangayan stabbed him five times.

The medical evidence showed that Madjos sustained a stab wound that penetrated his heart and caused his death. Sulina sustained four lacerated wounds, including a penetration of his urinary bladder that required surgery and would have been fatal without it. Macerin sustained two lacerated wounds, which healed, although he died sixteen days later of a cause recorded as carcinoma of the liver. Sansanan sustained only a superficial lacerated wound that was not fatal. The evidence also showed that the injuries could have killed the victims were it not for the timely arrival of prison guards and the medical assistance of the hospital staff.

The accused admitted to investigators that they attacked the victims because the latter, members of a rival gang, were reportedly planning to attack them. As early as the evening of May 1, 1972, the two accused agreed to attack the rival group early the following morning, and they carried out that plan at dawn. At the time of the incident, both accused were serving final sentences for robbery. After the incident, they surrendered to the authorities and gave statements admitting their participation.

Issues

• Whether or not the plea of guilty admitted the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.
• Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense.
• Whether or not the crime was qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
• Whether or not the trial court violated the accused's right against self-incrimination when it questioned them on their previous convictions.
• Whether or not the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism was correctly appreciated.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty entitled the accused to a lower penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, on quasi-recidivism, provides:

ART. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense. — Penalty. — Besides the provisions of rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

This provision bears on the case because both accused committed the new felony while serving final sentences for robbery, which required the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty for the new offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a plea of guilty admits all the material allegations of the information, including the attendant circumstances that qualify or aggravate the crime. On the second issue, the Court held that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that the accused must prove with sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, and that no such evidence was presented.

On the third issue, the Court found treachery present. Although the physician testified that the assailant stood in front of Madjos, the same witness testified that the attack could have been sudden and unexpected because there was no sign that the victim tried to parry the thrust, and Sulina was still asleep when he was stabbed five times. The Court found evident premeditation from the fact that the accused agreed on the evening of May 1 to attack their victims and executed the plan at dawn the next day, with sufficient time in between to meditate and reflect on the plan and its consequences.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court's question about the nature of the offense for which the accused were serving sentence did not call for incriminating answers, since their status as prisoners serving final sentences was not disputed and appeared in their extrajudicial confessions and in the information itself.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the lower court correctly found quasi-recidivism. The Court explained that quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that imposes the maximum of the penalty for the new offense, that it makes no difference whether the prior offense falls under the Revised Penal Code or a special law, and that it is punished more severely than recidivism because the maximum degree of the penalty must always be imposed irrespective of any mitigating circumstance.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the existence of quasi-recidivism rendered moot the argument that mitigating circumstances were not considered. Although the accused voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty, the imposition of the supreme penalty was in order. However, for lack of the necessary votes, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

A plea of guilty admits all the material allegations of the information, including the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Self-defense must be proved by the accused with sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Treachery may be appreciated where the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, and evident premeditation requires proof of the time to meditate and reflect on the plan and its consequences. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code is a special aggravating circumstance that requires the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony, regardless of any mitigating circumstance, and regardless of whether the prior offense is punished under the Revised Penal Code or a special law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua and raising the indemnity in the murder case to 12,000 pesos.

Remember This

Remember that quasi-recidivism compels the maximum penalty for the new felony and cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. Examiners use this case to test the effect of a plea of guilty, the appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation, and the operation of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code.